“Man-Made Warming” Dubbed “Worst Scientific Scandal In History”

I understand that everywhere else today it is “Michale Jackson is dead” day – I suspect days such as this must be infinitely boring to most news junkies because the news is dominated by a single topic.

Meanwhile Democrats are doing their best to rush cap-and-trade through the House today even while the pseudo-science that supports their effort continues to collapse. The WSJ has an article today which points out:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Interestingly, as the EPA story below points out, it has actually been suppressed here. But that hasn’t stopped the scientific community elsewhere from continuing to destroy the myth of consensus and replace it with a healthy, and might I add peer reviewed, skepticism real science brings to any theory:

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

It is falling apart in big chunks now – not that anyone on the left here is listening. We’ve got the fingers firmly in the ears in Congress and the EPA. Both made up their minds years ago, having bought into the pseudo-science of Al Gore and are now determined to act on their preconceived notions – science be damned.

Economist John M. Keynes once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

The answer for the left is ignore them and pass economy killing legislation as fast as they can.

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, today asked Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Oversight Committee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to begin an investigation on the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in developing its endangerment finding.

The endangerment finding, if formalized by a rule, would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, something U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., once called “a glorious mess.”

“It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote. “The attached EPA emails raise serious questions about the process for developing the proposed endangerment finding, whether analysis or information was suppressed because it did not support the administration and/or administrator’s proposed finding, and/or whether there is a fear within the agency that there will be negative consequences for offices that offer views critical of the prevailing views of the administrator and the administration.”

Its coming apart due to the fact we’ve leveled off in temp (slight decline possibly). But that all depends on who’s temp data you want to go by. And that’s one of the problems. They can’t tweak temp data indefinitely especially if temps start to fall more rapidly. Especially when cooling is reducing world crop yields like last year and threatens to do more on a consistent basis.
So I’ve seen two desperate moves. One is to accelerate on of the end goals, cap & trade. If they can impliment this, not only do they get what they want, but they can imply its responsible for lowering temperatures.
The other is a little more desperate. Its to perform some atmospheric hocus pocus, like shooting chemicals into the atmosphere, and claim its was responsible for the cooling trend. The claim will go something like this, “We fixed it for now, but we can’t keep doing this forever”.

Among the organizations that have formally determined that global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing are: NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, EPA, The Royal Society of the UK, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Academy of Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Australian Academy of Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Academy of Sciences.
Who else agrees? How about British Petroleum, Shell, and Exxon.
It’s true, Jim Inhofe says he has a list of scientists who think differently. How many are reputable climatologists? Why have they failed utterly to convince the leading scientific organizations that study the climate?

Are any of those scientists or are we talking about apples and oranges here?

The IPCC also made that determination, however scientists in great numbers are disputing the IPCC’s findings. Tell me why we should be impressed by your laundry list of associations and societies who most likely made their “determination” prior to the new evidence cited in the article became available?

And why is scientific skepticism growing instead of contracting if the science is so solid?

Gee, how many of the guys at British Petroleum, Shell and Exxon are reputable climatologists?
Not exactly their forte is it?
And when this is done, there’s going to be a lot of “reputable” climatologists who are going to have NO reputation left because they pimped themselves out to the Y2K style hysteria for the money.
People who want to live their lives being ‘scared’ by something should go watch a horror flick, and not try to pick our pockets to pay for some atavistic need they have to be afraid of things they don’t really understand and can’t possibly control.

The big reason that the left has latched on to this is watermellon politics “green outside, red inside”. They pretend that the earth is dying so that they can trick the rest of the world into implementing a vast social engineering program that is not needed, required, or wanted by the majority.

Given the active effort of the Obama adminstration to surpress any evidence crtical of Al Gores’s pet theory of antropogenic global warming, what is Obama’s motivation to pass “Cap and Tax?”

Either Obama ia profoundly stupid, or he has another motive for “Cap and Tax.” I suspect that Obama needs the tax revenue to finance his healthcare scheme. I don’t trust the one any farther than I can throw him and I have a bum shoulder.

MSDNC had on some moronic reporter (which, for that “network,” is not a solitary instance) who said that the higher temperatures in the South and West this week were due to global warming. Then, as if she could get any more stupid, she was asked why temperatures in the eastern US were 4-5 degrees F colder. Her answer? Yep, you have it right – global warming.

Only amongst the brain deadness of liberalism can warmer be because of global warming, and colder can be because of global warming.

Uh, this just in: VP Joe Biden says that the Obama administration plans to create 1 million new “green jobs” to combat global warning, then will cut 2 million jobs so that there will be less pollution from those people who work.

“The peopple should get what they voted for…and they should get it good and hard.”

Hey! I didn’t vote for The Clown™, so why should I get a Barney Frank uppa-da-anus? What did I do to deserve having this smiling thugster in the White House rob and steal from me and from my family to aid and assist him and his socialist and Marxist cronies become richer?

November 2010 can’t get here soon enough. If I have to stand on line in the snow, and go without food and drink for a week, I will go out and vote against Democrats, and I will call every friend I have ever had to egg them on to do the same. I want to the see the Dems lose 100 seats in the House if possible, and that much only if it is a bad night for the GOP.

Economist John M. Keynes once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Unfortunately, this has never been about the facts. It has been about taking sides in an ideological battle on a much larger scale. Both parties are guilty of it, but the Democrats just seem to be on the wrong side most often. If the Democrats were even just to ease up on the pushing the AGW agenda, it would be an admission of possible error on a major policy platform and therefore a victory to the “other” side. Nevermind what any of this means for the people they supposedly represent.

It ‘means’ we’re going to break our dependence on the Middle East for energy!
Didn’t you see that, one of the bills sponsors (yet another bone head from Taxachusetts) said so! As if they are Scott Erb, they have ordained it be so (while they’re at it, why don’t they ordain that we have Faster Than Light travel and we can find other planets to visit too).
We’ll show those A-Rabs! We’re gonna knock ourselves back to the 12th century and they’ll be sooooooooooooo jealous!